InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Washington regulator advises credit unions that virtual annual meetings are permitted
On March 6, the Washington Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Credit Unions notified credit unions that they are permitted to conduct annual meetings virtually, although any virtual meetings would need to be authorized by the institution’s bylaws and the meeting must otherwise be conducted under board-approved rules of procedure.
Washington regulator requests notice of credit union closures
On March 5, the Washington Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Credit Unions asked credit unions to provide notification if they temporarily close a branch or other location typically open to the public. The regulator also asked credit unions to provide notification if they otherwise limit the availability of services.
NYDFS allows increased licensed check casher fee
On February 28, NYDFS issued an industry letter to licensed check cashers in the state. Pursuant to Section 372.3 of the New York Banking Law and Part 400.11 of the Superintendent’s Regulations, the maximum fee that licensed check cashers may charge is increased to 2.23 percent of the face amount of the check, “except with respect to the cashing of checks, drafts, or money orders for payees of such checks, drafts, or money orders that are other than natural persons.” The increase takes effect March 2.
CSBS seeks additional comments on money services businesses model law
On February 25, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) issued a second request for comments on its draft model law language for money services businesses (MSB Model Law)—a primary part of CSBS’s Vision 2020 initiatives, which are intended to modernize state regulation of non-banks and fintech firms. (Vision 2020 InfoBytes coverage is available here.) According to CSBS, the draft MSB Model Law is comprised of “an integrated, 50-state licensing and supervisory system that recognizes standards across state lines.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, last October CSBS requested comments on the draft MSB Model Law language focusing on issue areas identified by the Fintech Industry Advisory Panel—Control, Activity and Exemption Definitions, Safety & Soundness, and Supervision. To finalize the areas of control and supervision, CSBS is seeking a second round of comments by March 11 to address the following issues identified from comments received during the first round.
- The industry expressed implementation concerns, with several parties noting, “that CSBS has no authority to implement the MSB Model Law in individual states and utilizing NMLS to drive consistency could compound differences between states.”
- The proposed control language failed to address uncertainty over the identification of control persons. Moreover, “attempts to exclude passive investors [did] not achieve the intended results.”
- The industry strongly suggested that parity language contained in the draft MSB Model Law—designed to facilitate state adoption—“was overly broad and would create uncertainty if used.”
- Definitions and exemptions fell short on several critical issues.
- The existence of proponents and detractors of both the safety and soundness proposals signaled a divergence within the industry as to the appropriate safeguards for customer funds.
CSBS notes that the MSB Model Law language will help harmonize operations between states. After the comment period ends, CSBS will prioritize the MSB Model Law for release, with control and coordination language expected to be released in the second quarter of 2020, followed by activities and exemption definitions in May. CSBS also plans to work with states and the industry on safety and soundness language, which may be released as early as August.
California AG says federal privacy legislation should not include preemption
On February 25, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra sent a letter to the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, asking lawmakers to not preempt state laws as they draft federal privacy legislation. While Becerra expressed his appreciation for Congress’ efforts to address consumer privacy issues through legislation, he stated, “I encourage Congress to favor legislation that sets a federal privacy-protection floor rather than a ceiling, allowing my state—and others that may follow—the opportunity to provide further protections tailored to our residents.” To emphasize his position, Becerra provided an update on the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which confers significant new privacy rights to California consumers concerning the collection, use, disclosure, and sale of their personal information by covered businesses, service providers, and third parties. The CCPA took effect January 1 but will not be enforced until July 1 following promulgation of the attorney general’s CCPA regulations. (See continuing InfoBytes coverage on the CCPA here.)
Becerra outlined several criteria for Congress to consider when drafting privacy legislation, encouraging Congress to “develop a final bill that builds on the rights afforded by [the] CCPA” as well as the additional guidance within the proposed regulations. These include the right for consumers to (i) “access, correct, and delete personal information that has been collected”; (ii) “minimize data collection, processing, and retention”; (iii) “data portability among services”; and (iv) “know what data is collected and processed and for what reasons.” In addition, Becerra stated that Congress should make clear that state attorneys general have “parallel enforcement authority” and that consumers are granted a private right of action to protect their rights.
Maryland orders vehicle title lender to pay $2.2 million
On February 21, the Maryland attorney general announced the issuance of a final order against a vehicle title lender, its owner, and related businesses (defendants) for making unlicensed and usurious consumer loans in violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. According to the AG’s Consumer Protection Division (Division), the defendants offered consumers short-term, high-interest loans secured by a consumer’s motor vehicle title. The defendants allegedly kept the vehicle’s title, and, if the consumer failed to make a payment on the loan, would repossess or sell the vehicle. The Division claimed that these transactions, which the defendants claimed were pawn transactions, were actually consumer loans under Maryland law and carried interest rates of 360 percent. Under the terms of the final order, all loans the defendants made to Maryland consumers are void and unenforceable. The defendants are also ordered to, among other things, permanently cease engaging in unlicensed lending activities in the state and may not make loans that exceed the maximum allowed rate of interest, charge fees that are not permitted under state law, repossess secured vehicles or other personal property, or operate without requisite surety bonds. In addition, the defendants may not repossess consumers’ vehicles and must return any repossessed vehicles still in their possession. Finally, the defendants must pay at least $2.2 million in restitution to affected consumers, a $1.2 million civil penalty, a $50,000 claims procedure fee, and $73,000 in costs.
Special Alert: Trailer bill would enact California Consumer Financial Protection Law
A trailer bill accompanying the governor’s proposed 2020-2021 state budget would expand the Department of Business Oversight’s (DBO) authority and enact the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (Law).
Specifically, the provisions outlined in the proposed Law would revamp and rename the state’s DBO, expand its authority to protect consumers from predatory practices, and foster the responsible development of new financial products. Under California’s Constitution, a trailer bill — which provides for an appropriation related to the budget bill — takes effect immediately after a simple majority vote and the governor’s signature.* * *
Click here to read the full special alert.
If you have any questions regarding the California Consumer Financial Protection Law or other related issues, please visit our Consumer Finance practice page or contact a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.New York AG settles with student debt relief companies
On February 18, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved a settlement between the State of New York and a student loan debt relief operation including five debt relief companies and one individual (defendants) in order to resolve allegations that the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Federal Credit Repair Organizations Act, TILA, state usury laws, and various other state laws. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the New York attorney general brought the lawsuit in 2018 alleging that the defendants “engag[ed] in deceptive, fraudulent and illegal conduct…through their marketing, offering for sale, selling and financing” of debt relief services to student loan borrowers. The AG claimed that, among other things, the defendants allegedly (i) charged consumers who purchased the debt relief services illegal upfront fees; (ii) misrepresented that they were part of or working with the federal government; (iii) falsely claimed that fees paid by borrowers would be applied to borrowers’ student loan balances; and (iv) induced borrowers to enter into usurious financing contracts to pay for the debt relief services.
Under the terms of the agreement, the defendants—without admitting or denying the allegations—agreed to a judgment of $2.2 million, which will be suspended if the defendants promptly pay $50,000 to the State of New York and comply with all other provisions of the agreement. The defendants are also permanently banned from advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, or selling any type of debt relief product or service—or from assisting others in doing the same. Additionally, the defendants must request that any credit reporting agency to which the defendants reported consumer information in connection with the student loan debt relief services remove the information from those consumers’ credit files. The defendants also agreed not to sell, transfer, or benefit from the personal information collected from borrowers. According to the settlement, six additional defendants were not included in the agreement and the AG’s case against them continues.
Four trade groups sue Maine over privacy law
On February 14, four trade groups filed suit against Maine in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, alleging that a recently enacted state privacy law (covered by InfoBytes here) infringes the rights of Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The complaint claims that L.D. 946 “imposes unprecedented and unduly burdensome restrictions on ISPs’, and only ISPs’, protected speech,” and is “not remotely tailored to protecting consumer privacy.” Among other things, the trade groups claim that because the law only stifles the use of consumer data by ISPs and not by other similarly situated companies, it violates their First Amendment protected speech rights. The groups also argue that the Maine law is much stricter to ISPs than other state privacy laws which “provide opt-out rights for most consumer data and reserve opt-in consent for a narrow subset of sensitive personal information,” whereas L.D. 946 uses an opt-in system. L.D. 946 also restricts the ISPs’ use of non-sensitive information that is not personally identifying and prohibits the ISPs from providing customer discounts or rewards programs to consumers who opt-in to sharing information.
Special Alert: California attorney general modifies proposed CCPA regulations
The California attorney general last week released modifications to the proposed regulations announced last October (covered by a Buckley Special Alert) implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The CCPA—enacted in June 2018 (also covered by a Buckley Special Alert) and amended several times—became effective Jan. 1.
This Special Alert contains a summary of key modifications to the proposed regulations.* * *
Click here to read the full special alert.
If you have any questions regarding the CCPA or other related issues, please visit our Privacy, Cyber Risk & Data Security practice page or contact a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.